Another e-mail:

I know Bill Crocker. He is one of two Texas representatives to the Republican National Committee, and a long-time activist, administrative lawyer, and solid conservative. And Texas is not a caucus state (on the GOP side). Only the Dems have the split primary/caucus system, originally devised for the purpose of minimizing black (and working-class white) influence in the party. Bill’s opposition to this makes no sense to me at all.

Some delegates will defend the prerogative of the state parties to run their own affairs on just about any issue. They are concerned that if they start bossing other states around, those states could try to tell them what to do. Maybe that was Crocker’s concern. But the way he expressed his opposition to the amendment made no sense to me. Yes, the proposed amendment would have carved out a special right for members of the military, but don’t we believe they deserve exceptional treatment? Considering the prohibition on other types of political activity that apply to on-duty soldiers, shouldn’t we at least make sure they can vote?